THAT fall killed Dyle? - Charade (1963) Discussion

[–] enriquesinghjr 8 years ago

Perhaps the fall had other consequences throughout his body? There have been more unbelievable deaths on film, I can accept this one... I have fallen from a small ladder one or two steps high and have gotten back pain even though I landed on my feet... but I guess he *should* have survived the fall.

reply

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 8 years ago

Good point.

All those bullets didn't kill him, but this fall did. Doesn't make sense, but oh well...still a great film!

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

reply

[–] ecarle 8 years ago

It was quite some distance. Look at the POV from Hepburn looking down at Grant walking to the body.

If the killer was totally unaware of the drop he was about to fall from, that impact could have broken his spine right in half, killing his brain.

On the other hand, its not "conclusive" enough, and clearly a dummy...

reply

[–] ZolotoyRetriever 8 years ago

Due to his war injuries, he could have been in far worse physical condition than people realize, so it is possible that the impact he sustained from that fall, while not necessarily injurious to a healthier person, could in fact have proved deadly for a middle-aged man in marginal physical health.

Another thing: I don't recall in the film whether it was conclusive that he died. The way it was portrayed, he might just as well have been knocked cold as he fell. He was holding a pistol as he fell - did the pistol discharge and shoot him (Dyle) as he hit the floor? I don't think so, but in any case, I saw nothing in the end that indicated Dyle was dead.

Don't mess with me, man! I know karate, judo, ju-jitsu..... and several other Japanese words.

reply

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 8 years ago

Hmm...good point. He could have just become knocked out for a few hours and arrested afterwards. I think the point of that scene was to show that he was caught.

Interesting point about his physical condition, too. Although he had been capable of killing all those other men. Murdering that big fellow (Tex) would have taken some strength. Most likely he hit him over the head, knocked him out, and then tied him up and suffocated him.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen = 

reply

[–] ecarle 8 years ago

He could have just become knocked out for a few hours and arrested afterwards. I think the point of that scene was to show that he was caught.

---

I think Cary Grant's approach to Matthau on the floor indicated a man walking up to a corpse. But I guess the screenwriting here was a bit weak, as was the non-conclusive nature of the fall. But I see Matthau as dead. That nothing more is said of him is supportive of that, too.

---

Interesting point about his physical condition, too. Although he had been capable of killing all those other men. Murdering that big fellow (Tex) would have taken some strength. Most likely he hit him over the head, knocked him out, and then tied him up and suffocated him.

---

I think that the fact the at least two big tough men(Herman and Tex) were killed in a "physical" way helped keep the secret that Matthau was the killer. We don't much THINK of Walter Matthau as a guy who could physically take George Kennedy and James Coburn in their prime.

But by the film's end and the "big reveal," we COULD accept it. Dyle had had years to heal up, toughen up, and perfect his rage against the others. He would be "tough enough." Als, I would expect that both Scobie and Tex were "taken from behind," knocked out, and then moved into their deathtraps by Dyle.

reply

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 8 years ago

I've always thought that Dyle ended up dead at the end of the film, but the other poster's comments made me think twice.

Good point about Dyle having to toughen up. In fact, in one scene where he's talking to Reggie on the phone, he's doing some kinds of exercises. Obviously he was intent on keeping up his strength and physical ability.

Yup, both Scobie and Tex must have been knocked out from behind first. No way could he have managed the murders without doing that first. Also, I am still convinced that Dyle is the one who wrote "DYLE" next to Tex's body. Tex was completely bound. He couldn't have written it before dying. Besides, from Carson Dyle's point of view, the only living Dyle connected with the case was Cary Grant's character, who was pretending to be Alexander Dyle. So the real Dyle thought that he was so smart by trying to throw suspicion on this stranger. He didn't realize that this stranger was on the case. All that Dyle did was prove to Grant's character that Carson Dyle is still alive and that Carson Dyle is the only one who could have committed the crimes. Sure enough, first thing Cary Grant says to Reggie at the subway station is, "Stop. That man is Carson Dyle." (He probably already had his suspicions when Reggie was sneaking off to meet someone outside the hotel, and when she found out that Carson Dyle had no brother.)

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen = 

reply

[–] ZolotoyRetriever 8 years ago

Another thing: this was made in 1963, after all, and back then mainstream movies didn't necessarily go overboard with gory or graphic death scenes. That's much more par for the course nowadays, of course, but back then, there was a different "sensibility" if you will about depicting death. With that in mind, the director here probably felt it was enough to show Dyle falling and appearing "dead," and let the viewers draw their own conclusion that Dyle was, if not dead, at least "caught," and put out of commission. That was enough for me - I didn't need to see a real graphic death scene. It was enough for me that they had finally smoked out the "real" Dyle and put him out of commission.

Don't mess with me, man! I know karate, judo, ju-jitsu..... and several other Japanese words.

reply

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 8 years ago

I agree with you about gory/graphic death scenes, although I think that, in this movie, they were quite graphic when they showed the four murder victims. Last few times I watched this film, I admit I closed my eyes when the first 3 victims were shown. I only paid attention to Tex's death scene because I wanted to be sure that he couldn't have written "DYLE" next to himself.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen = 

reply

[–] ZolotoyRetriever 8 years ago

True, I did think of the fact that the results of the other murders looked gory (and disturbing) enough, but they didn't show the actual murder deed being done, except for the first guy rolling down the hill after having been tossed from the train.

For them to have shown Dyle falling, say, on his head and getting his skull cracked wide open might have been more believable as an answer to the OP's "THAT fall killed Dyle?"... but, I don't think movie-goers were ready for that level of graphic death scenarios back then. Some aren't up to that even today. lol

Don't mess with me, man! I know karate, judo, ju-jitsu..... and several other Japanese words.

reply

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 8 years ago

I'm no fan of graphic deaths in movies myself. I like how those were handled in classic mysteries, film noir, and gangster movies. Personally, I think that some of the disturbing scenes in such films are far more effective than the tiresome "blood and guts" scenes in certain more modern movies. Charade is a perfect example of disturbing-looking murders. There is also a scene in the 1931 film The Public Enemy in which...spoilers about the ending....James Cagney's body is delivered to his mother's home. That scene really freaked me out when I first saw that film. No blood/guts needed there.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen = 

reply

[–] ZolotoyRetriever 8 years ago

I like how those were handled in classic mysteries, film noir, and gangster movies.

Me too. I'm just fine with, say, somebody getting shot and dying, without having to show gallons of blood and carnage to get the point across. The way they show death scenes nowadays often seems like overkill, if you'll pardon the expression. lol

Don't mess with me, man! I know karate, judo, ju-jitsu..... and several other Japanese words.

reply

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 8 years ago

Exactly. Besides, the special effects with the gory scenes usually aren't well done. What do they use for blood? Ketchup? Red kool-aid? And just how much time is wasted, showing the blood oozing out of them or something? It's a waste of time, kind of like all those idiotic scenes in modern films in which they play inspirational music while the main character is sitting and moping.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen = 

reply

[–] ecarle 8 years ago

I agree with you about gory/graphic death scenes, although I think that, in this movie, they were quite graphic when they showed the four murder victims.

---

I would like to point out that "Charade" came out three years after "Psycho," which had rather raised the bar for screen gore(though its hardly gory today.)

I expect that Cary Grant, having done the relatively "un-gory" four Hitchcock pictures up through "North by Northwest" -- which was Hitchcock's movie one year before "Psycho", acceded to the fact that, since Psycho, murders needed to be bloodier and more violent to meet changing audience tastes.

Thus we get:

First victim: bloodied face.
Second victim: drowned in bathtub
Third victim: slashed in throat(the bloodiest of the murders)
Fourth victim: suffocated with plastic bag (his face a look of horror.)

That PLUS the bloody gash George Kennedy's hook tears down Cary Grant's back in the rooftop fight, and the bit where Kennedy jabs a stickpin into the corpse to prove it is dead.

AND: Coburn throwing a series of lit matches onto Audrey Hepburn's lap.

---
Last few times I watched this film, I admit I closed my eyes when the first 3 victims were shown.

---

They are violent. Interesting: of the four victims, three are "discovered corpses," but we see the fourth victim ride the elevator to his gory death as a live man.

Back around 1963 I was a kid and not allowed to see Charade. But I got to see all the gory murders -- in the pages of "Mad magazine" and its "Charade" spoof.

--

I only paid attention to Tex's death scene because I wanted to be sure that he couldn't have written "DYLE" next to himself.

---

But he did write "DYLE" next to himself, didn't he?

reply

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 8 years ago

Tex couldn't have been the one who wrote "DYLE". Impossible. His hands were completely bound. Reggie is the one who said that he did, but she would have been too terrified to think clearly. Besides, how did she know for sure who wrote "DYLE"? She wasn't there when the murder took place. Neither are any of the viewers, but Carson Dyle would be the only logical explanation.

By the way, I agree with you about those other violent scenes, like Tex throwing those lit matches on Reggie.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen = 

reply

[–] ecarle 8 years ago

Tex couldn't have been the one who wrote "DYLE". Impossible. His hands were completely bound. Reggie is the one who said that he did, but she would have been too terrified to think clearly. Besides, how did she know for sure who wrote "DYLE"? She wasn't there when the murder took place. Neither are any of the viewers, but Carson Dyle would be the only logical explanation.

---

Interesting. So Matthau wrote it to send the blame to Grant as "Dyle" at that point? Well, maybe. As I recall, Coburn was bound so that his hands could have scratched the name in the carpet, though. I guess I'll have to " go to the tape"(the film itself.)

---

By the way, I agree with you about those other violent scenes, like Tex throwing those lit matches on Reggie.

--

I expect that 1963 audiences(or 1964; Charade came out around Christmas) were shocked to see their sweet Audrey subjected to such torments by Coburn(and later chased around her hotel room by hook-handed George Kennedy.) "Charade" rather upped the ante on the thriller in general. "Psycho" was as much a horror movie as a thriller, but Charade was a ROMANCE -- in which men are getting nastily killed along the way and the heroine is physically menaced .

Not to mention: for a good stretch of the movie, it is suggested that Cary Grant is the killer! Shades of "Suspicion."

---

Its also interesting that, a mere four years after Charade(and again at Christmas), Audrey Hepburn would AGAIN be menaced by thugs after something valuable her husband had. The movie was 1967's "Wait Until Dark," and again, some men die nasty deaths. But the terror-filled climax(psycho drugged-up mob killer Alan Arkin versus sweet blind Audrey) was more in the scream-filled "Psycho" tradition than that of "Charade." There's no romance, this time; Hepburn is married to stodgy old Efrem Zimbalist, Jr.

---

And this: I was too young to notice at the time, but I have since read 1963 reviews on Charade that let us know it came out a bit too soon after the John F. Kennedy assassination (November 22, 1963) and got some bad reviews accordingly, along the lines of "given the horrible public murder of JFK, Charade is in bad taste with its comic approach to killings." And, Grant and Hepburn had to re-loop the film to eliminate the word "assassinate" from the soundtrack(it became "eliminate"!)

reply

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 8 years ago

Yup, I think that Carson Dyle wanted to cast suspicion on Grant's character. Big mistake, since all he did was let Grant's character know for sure that he, Carson Dyle, is still alive. Like I was saying in another post here, Grant's character would have been wondering who Reggie was meeting/phoning in secret. For example, there was the one night where she suddenly left the hotel, and somehow she found out that Carson Dyle had no brother. He would have wondered where she got this info. Seeing "DYLE" written on the carpet must have given him the answer.

I agree with you about "shades of Suspicion". (I'm a fan of many Hitchcock films myself.) Suspicion's a good one, as is Notorious.

Thanks for the heads up on Wait Until Dark. I haven't seen that movie.

To me, one of the most disturbing scenes in any film is the first part of the 1933 horror film Murders in the Zoo, and that would have been done on an extremely low budget.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen = 

reply

[–] movieghoul 8 years ago

I agree, the definite intent is that Tex somehow scratched it out. It had nothing to do with trying to incriminate Joshua, Tex was trying to ID his killer. Why would Dyle do it, and risk revealing to Joshua that he's still alive?

reply

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 8 years ago

How exactly did Tex do it? His hands were completely bound. Physically it would have been impossible for him to do it.

Carson Dyle didn't know who Cary Grant's character was. He didn't know that the guy was assigned to handle the case. All he knew was that there was some stranger appearing to be after the money, and the stranger was passing himself off as Dyle. Reggie told Carson Dyle (when she snuck out of the hotel to meet him) that there was another man after the money, a man named Dyle. The real Carson Dyle was presumed dead. So Carson Dyle might have thought that he was being so clever by writing "DYLE" next to his victim. His big slip-up was that Grant's character was on the case, rather than being a crook. Carson Dyle couldn't have known who Grant's character really was, unless he had seen him at the embassy.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen = 

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

The shock of the fall could've put him in cardiac arrest. I can see it happening.

reply

[–] Owlwise (1488) 3 years ago

Well, people have been known to trip & fall at home, and they're killed because of how they hit the edge of a bathtub or a table.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

2022: Comedian Bob Saget dies from a fall evidently backwards onto the floor of his Florida hotel room. He was alone, no one could tend to him.

reply